Debate contribution: Food Security

Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on 1 December 2025.

MLA

Mr John Blair

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

1 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Food Security

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5269596

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like my Alliance colleagues, I oppose the DUP motion. In our view, not only is it an attempt to shirk responsibility, it risks undermining crucial ambitions for climate and environmental progress — ambitions that are essential to safeguarding our farming community and food security. Despite the rhetoric in the motion, of which there is much, food security is already a key policy focus in Northern Ireland. The motion indicates how our agriculture sector is already seen as a strategic asset, employing thousands, adding £4·9 billion to gross value added and producing enough food for 10 million people, when there are only two million of us. Additionally, the motion fails — conveniently, perhaps — to acknowledge the fact that, in this mandate, the Minister has already secured significant support for the agriculture sector. For example, he has secured ring-fenced funding of over £300 million for the sector and £12·3 million for the just transition fund. He is progressing our sustainable agriculture programme and actively engaging with the Finance Minister to secure further support for the industry. The main challenge is ensuring the sustainability and resilience of our food system against threats such as climate change and the poor policy choices of the past. Instead of learning from mistakes, the motion seems intent on ignoring the impact of past choices. It was, after all, the DUP that championed Brexit, which brought UK trade deals with countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but it now raises alarm at the trading reality that those choices ushered in, including the very Windsor framework that it criticises in the motion. While concerns about regulatory changes to veterinary medicines and on-farm practices are real, let us not forget who helped to create those circumstances in the first place. I acknowledge the active engagement of the Alliance AERA Minister with the UK Government on regulatory clarity for veterinary medicines. Schemes have been developed to maintain access to critical products and to support farmers as they navigate changing requirements. I know that the Minister continues to push for greater clarity as the deadline approaches. Turning to environmental responsibilities, the motion refers to climate targets as being merely "aspirational", yet the targets are legally binding, having been set in law by a Minister who, if you do not mind, was from the very party that has tabled this anti-environment motion. Climate action and food security are not in conflict, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Northern Irish farmers are some of the best custodians of the land. Many of them know too well the mounting risks that climate change brings, from extreme weather to threats to soil health and biodiversity. We cannot let short-term thinking jeopardise their future. Let us be clear: watering down climate targets will only harm our farmers in the long run, making us less, not more, food-secure. That is why the Alliance AERA Minister has launched schemes such as Farming with Nature and the bovine genetics project. Those are pioneering approaches that prove that agriculture and climate can and must work hand in hand. Only last week, the Office for Environmental Protection significantly announced an investigation of the handling of sewage discharges into Belfast lough — as if we needed another wake-up call. Minister Muir is working tirelessly to reverse the decline of our water quality, but meaningful change will require all Executive parties to step up, not step away.

Inaction on polluters, lack of investment and denial of evidence from parties in this Chamber only perpetuates the problems. While the DUP motion appears to aim at preserving animal welfare standards, the pollution that results from inadequate climate action directly contradicts that goal. Ignoring pollution harms animal health and ecosystems as more species decline and our natural environment deteriorates even further. Yes, we must prioritise the welfare of livestock. However, equally, we must protect biodiversity to ensure its ongoing survival. To put it simply, there can be no farming without nature.

Continuing on that theme and the subject of pollution, the Minister has consistently proven how committed he is to delivering clarity on ammonia controls. I am hopeful that future imminent progress on air quality will help with that. Ammonia pollution has real and immediate impacts on public health and the environment.

Yes, of course.

Absolutely; of course. That guidance is essential to the Minister, to his officials and to us, but those issues have been ignored for far too long by previous Ministers. Alliance is able to support the amendment, particularly its recognition of the destabilising impact of Brexit and the opportunities that dual market access offers. We agree that there must be no culls and that a just, evidenced-based transition is critical. Alliance cannot support a motion that is riddled with contradictions and blind to the reality that we face. Our climate and our agriculture are two sides of the same coin. Food security is not possible if we sacrifice one for the other. Our focus needs to be on solutions, not on scapegoats.

832 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification